[lamiera] welded edges

[SolidUser]

Absolutely not!
we do not do the tests before cutting the piece "real", we produce
without sampling anything.
later images of developments, to vary I also calculated development
with different materials and different rays.

marco exposed what I would write, plus 70% of the folds
we do are in "air".
I have a 23-year experience in this field, 10-12 of which have been in the workshop, quince, bending machine, punching machine, cutting water and now for 5 years
also laser cutting.
I have folded, unlike 99% of subscribers to this forum, sheet
since I was 20 years old with, at the beginning, development traced directly
on the sheet... that not knowing (the sheet), contains my object. . .
we used to track wagons and carter of all kinds, not boxes with straight corners and "simple" folds.
I do not fear any object to draw with sw for real production.
I have friends bending sheets every day, and adopt the ns itself
working system. returning to your piece, to be able to make the holes in the lip, we would do them
from diameter 2 then enlarge them to drill.
If instead it was a million pieces, perhaps equipping with a large quarry only 6 mm would be possible. . but in coniatura.. .

the development calculated by us is half between the third and the first image.
However the scaffolding is of some tenth and therefore would lead to the production of a compliant piece.
the fold radius is 2.5 mm.
the piece has undergone revision, the designer not having used the formulas, placed the holes at an incorrect distance and therefore are unbalanced.
The life doesn't pass.
mike, I repeat, I do not discuss your customized solution to your working method, I nevertheless think that you can not recommend an improper use of certain features only because the development however is well.
You're an accountant.
If your method used it to design, are you sure you'd be exhausted by errors?
The classic method is also applicable to the designer who does not have 20 years of experience on the sheet, but is a great designer.
Why are the formulas born?
formulas are born to be able to calculate development even if you are a pastry chef.

 

[sampom]

...if it were a million pieces, maybe equipping with a 6 mm wide quarry would be possible. . . However in coniatura...

already,
but he says no.

as you well know, the fold radius, not being a coniatura, is tied to the used quarry and tonnage etched.

..and the "tuning", in relation to thickness and material, affects theangle fold. If I have to make a straight turn, at equal quarry, I can't play on tonnage to get the rays I want.. unless you go to "fresh" the program (of the bending machine) indicating resistors (and/or thicknesses) "false". but it would be a mess and everything to test.

But I have to predict that I'm almost profane in the field. we have the bending machine for just over a year and we are still doing the bones. understood the game I get particular folded (small and medium size) precise with perfect developments (at least for us, +o- 0.1). swx helps me a lot in the drafting of the developments to be sent to the cut, the silhouettes that arrive perfectly respect what I had anticipated.
but while trying with the "formules" there was no verse, I had to make a series of samples by detecting from the real and "adjusting" the k in swx (where the developments are right to the fifth decimal).
for the rays I use the real ones that come out of the machine, I prefer also to design the real conformation of the piece that I need when I have to "copy" the profiles and/or to establish the real encumbrances of the edges.
we do nothing special so for now we use the standard equipment of the machine that has only a "x" matrix to 4 quarries. with these we arrange following the old "formula" of the hollow width=8 times the thickness. and also I have noticed that in our case (we use almost exclusively aisi 304) is perfectly valid the rule of the old carpenters (without cad nè cn) that to calculate the development they made the sum of the internal sides. and according to this, without making calculations or drawings or tests, I would tell you that for me the development of that piece would have an encumbrance of 189x51.3. But with my rays (that you don't specify) I couldn't make you holes down.
and I see that my calculation "eye" differs little from what happened by mike precisely for 304.

first, when I made everything out, I provided only the drawing of the finished folded piece; supplier business calculate developments and respect the size. never "I would be allowed" biggrin to give him a table with flattened and fold lines. In the same way I don't feel like guaranteeing that what I prepare for my workshop can be good for you.. If you don't give me all the data/values you require.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[re_solidworks]

I always give the development table, but I say that radius and factor k I used and write to adapt the development in case of discordance or contact me for adjustments.
with the usual suppliers, instead, I give the already correct development according to agreed parameters.

 

[SolidUser]

but while trying with the "formules" there was no verse, I had to make a series of samples by detecting from the real and "adjusting" the k in swx (where the developments are right to the fifth decimal).

all cads use formulas to find development, those same formulas found on books.
the only variable linked to the thickness and type of material is the k factor, which is the same that asks for solidworks.
also the fold radius is obtainable.
However I assure you that you can get more precision now with the formulas that once they were tracking on the sheet.
ask mike how many pieces to throw away with the old method.
They only tracked who had experience.
now manages to develop a new expert.
You just have to find the correct k factor and then you're okay.

 

[sampom]

Absolutely not!
we do not do the tests before cutting the piece "real", we produce
without sampling anything... .

in this regard "I quit" :biggrin: (and I had already talked about it), because the technician/mounter who installed the machine (taken directly from the mother's house, but it is a refurbished use) said that before working on the piece it is always better to try on a sample strip (what I found absurd, how much material I threw at the end of the year?. Okay the rubble, but...). I finally managed to achieve some uniformity, but the problem for the operator remains always the x value (in the control program would be the distance of the arrests) to be assigned. Who knows why from time to time can change.. but I think it is a problem of the program along with the hydraulic/mechanical no longer "young" (together with other defects, to the right bend more than to the left, the corners are always to be corrected etc. etc.).

 

[sampom]

You just have to find the correct k factor and then you're okay.

Thanks, I know. It's just what I got myself doing the auditions (besides the real rays).
but a "neo perito" (but only the fifth elementary) cannot do so with the theory if it does not have the possibility to go to the workshop or if it does not have direct contacts with the suppliers.
and those who were tracking on the sheet would always listen to them. .

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

in this regard, "I'm stranisco" :biggrin: (and I had already spoken to you), because precisely the technician/assembler that installed the machine (taken directly from the mother's house, but it is a refurbished use) said that before working on the real piece it is always better to try on a sample strip (which I found absurd, how much material I threw at the end of the year?. Okay the rubble, but...). I finally managed to achieve some uniformity, but the problem for the operator remains always the x value (in the control program would be the distance of the arrests) to be assigned. Who knows why from time to time can change.. but I think it is a problem of the program along with the hydraulic/mechanical no longer "young" (together with other defects, to the right bend more than to the left, the corners are always to be corrected etc. etc.).

:biggrin:
Mah... it will be that my folder colleague is really good and he has accustomed me to really amazing things, but I think that the "technical"
that has installed the vs bending machine really knows little bend, will be hardware
on the mechanics of the bending machine, but it is better that you let lose certain statements.

I have to read your post to my colleague. :smile:

we are waiting for a new 250 t 4 m hose, will be installed in April, it is so sophisticated that it compensates, with a special mechanism,
the deformation that occurs along the whole length.
for the record is a mecos, I do not remember the model, managed by a software
where it is possible to simulate all the folds of a given object.
my esteemed colleague, tells me that already only the sense of cutting objects
equal, but cut perpendicularly one compared to the other on the same sheet,
have different bending pressure, other than tables and technical data.
he creates fold programs that take into account the satin sense
and cutting sense above.
all these things are not configurable by any manual:
field experience is our gym.
about drawings: Some customers to reduce costs sometimes provide us
drawings, even asked me the parameters we use
for the calculation of development so that they make drawing the various carter
with ns parameters.
we use fractional dies of the pleasure technostamp and most
I'm with 45° angle and we find ourselves very well.
we have the 6 - 8 -12 - 16 - 25 - 40 - 50 plus the fold-shrink and punches
5-10-15-20-30 radius.

:smile:

 

[sampom]

..my esteemed colleague, tells me that already only the sense of cutting objects
equal, but cut perpendicularly one compared to the other on the same sheet,
have different bending pressure, other than tables and technical data. . .

already, I know this well too and it affects the parameters. depends on the direction of rolling.
as well as the different material matches. .
variations perhaps infinitesimal but present.

I already told you I have to come see you, didn't I? :biggrin:

greetings
Mar

 

[Mike1967]

already, I know this well too and it affects the parameters. depends on the direction of rolling.
as well as the different material matches. .
variations perhaps infinitesimal but present.
I already told you I have to come see you, didn't I? : Jiggrin:

salti
marco

I have already put in fresh a bottle of valdobbiadene....:biggrin:
then maybe we do a "punch" to Italian champion... :smile:

 

[sampom]

the fold radius is 2.5 mm..

That's not what you said and it's a salient matter. otherwise I do it as it seems to me and after the client cannot complain:wink:
and the holes are not there, you didn't even have to post it (unless you want to lure us into a trick:smile. I initially thought they were for thorns, certainly not for screws with head.

the piece has undergone revision, the designer not having used the formulas, placed the holes at an incorrect distance and therefore are unbalanced.
The life doesn't pass. .

no, it is slightly different the speech and "the formulas" have nothing to do with; the "projectist" (but of what?) is a jerk because that thing is immediately noticed when you throw your eye (my boss would say that I miss the stripes of the parking lot would make him draw). as well as those obrobrious discharges attached to holes.. Did you really build that piece like that? ?
an octuagenous tracker would pull it behind you as he sees the design:biggrin:.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[sampom]

then maybe we do a "punch" to Italian champion... :smile:

rather than casinWhat? I'd rather. . .
I know that in Switzerland there are other places not bad :biggrin::tongue:

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

rather than casinWhat? I'd rather. . .
I know that there are other places in Switzerland

greetings
Marco:smile:

But where?? :biggrin: I don't even know one :rolleyes, but two, three, four, five... Tell me, villa elena, holliwood, ocean, boss s. martino, calipso 1 and 2... etc... etc... etc... I don't remember them all...
Anyway, when you want... so we can also "recreate"...:biggrin:

 

[sampom]

But where?? :biggrin: I don't even know one :rolleyes, but two, three, four, five... Tell me, villa elena, holliwood, ocean, boss s. martino, calipso 1 and 2... etc... etc... etc... I don't remember them all...
Anyway, when you want... so we can also "recreate"...:biggrin:

eye to name, that here is forbidden advertising
:biggrin:

 

[Mike1967]

eye to name, that here is forbidden advertising
:biggrin:

Hahah... I was about to forget the sandy bar...


It's just a matter of saying... that this trhead went to baldness... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[SolidUser]

That's not what you said and it's a salient matter. otherwise I do it as it seems to me and after the client cannot complain:wink:
greetings
Marco:smile:

the ray is tied to the quarry and the force you push with.
the quarry is bound to the thickness.
therefore it is a data that revenues without having to say it.
when you design cannot decide the fold radius, it comes accordingly.

 

[Mike1967]

the ray is tied to the quarry and the force you push with.
the quarry is bound to the thickness.
therefore it is a data that revenues without having to say it.when you design cannot decide the fold radius, it comes accordingly.

Yes, and the fold angle?
because I must use 100 t for a fold on a 1.5 mm lam when
with much less can I do the same?
I miss something, the pressure, unless I work in conjunction, you keep
to the minimum indispensable, not to stress uselessly the mechanics of
press.
between the other we bend in the air, so we have much wider rays where the pressure does not affect minimally.
only the depth of descent of the punch attributes the fold angle, not the bending pressure.
with your last statement repeat what you have supported so far.
In fact, if we wanted, in the tests to identify the withdrawal, we also detected the real radius that actually turns out to bent.
If I can connect to the PC in the public office the data.

 

[SolidUser]

Thanks, I know. It's just what I got myself doing the auditions (besides the real rays).
but a "neo perito" (but only the fifth elementary) cannot do so with the theory if it does not have the possibility to go to the workshop or if it does not have direct contacts with the suppliers.
and those who were tracking on the sheet would always listen to them. .

greetings
Marco:smile:

It's the only variable you get experimentally.
You're already fine.
we have done these tests with the materials we use.
we have the k factor that varies with the thickness.
so when designing a sheet, once you set the thickness through the table 'gauge', I already have everything, because the formulas inserted in the excel sheet set the parameters factor k and fold radius.

 

[Mike1967]

... and the occurrence we self-build molds... particular. . .
In this case, I drew the piece "as in reality".

below the complete folding table, as soliduser says.... is personalized and therefore not said
that may be good for others.
Good vision.

 

[SolidUser]

Yes, and the fold angle?
.

the fold angle is that of the piece that is taken from the cad and inserted in the formula.

We're here to discuss details.

the speech is clear, to get the development there are more than one solution, yours, that of those who have 20 years of experience in at bending and that which uses the official formulas that also allows you to produce a piece consistent with the real one, giving you the opportunity to avoid design errors on the single piece or in a vision of assemblies, more the other not less important as rendering, fem analysis, etc.

who reads us will choose the one that most believes reliable.

 

[sampom]

when you design cannot decide the fold radius, it comes accordingly.

Maybe that "minimum allowed", but from there you can decide what you want.
and anyway it is what we are telling you all; "the formulas" arise from the real process and not vice versa.

It's the only variable you get experimentally. .

and say little. .

You're already fine.
we have done these tests with the materials we use.
we have the k factor that varies with the thickness.
so when designing a sheet, once you set the thickness through the table 'gauge', I already have everything, because the formulas inserted in the excel sheet set the parameters factor k and fold radius.

I think that's what we all do. You don't tell us anything new.
So you see that your book formulas serve little if you don't check out and finish filling out "in the car"?

greetings
Marco:smile: